Featured Post

Ignoring the Lessons of Donald Trump

As Donald Trump continues to make a mess domestically and internationally, have his opponents learned anything? Nope.


As Donald Trump and his administration continue to stumble and destroy the American experiment, I sometimes wonder if we have learned why we have someone who is woefully unfit for the office is President of the United States.

My concern is that we haven’t learned a damn thing.

Donald Trump is like watching a traffic accident?—?you just can’t look away. His antics stir people up. The left and the portion of the right that is against Trump is basically in permanent outrage mode. And let’s admit it, it is not that hard to be outraged. Just look at what happened at the mess that was the summit in Helsinki with Soviet Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But Trump is President for a reason. (No, the answer is not Russia.) He is the Commander-in-Chief because both political parties had nothing to offer to an electorate that was upset and looking for someone, anyone to listen to them.

Yes, he’s a crook and a liar and a jerk. But he was able to say the right words to get people to vote for him. The problems that elected Donald Trump are still problems. As long as his opponents (and I include myself) don’t attend to those problems with solutions, Trump will continue to be a problem.

But it’s hard to ignore all the drama of Trumpworld. We obsess over his latest tweet, or what he said at a press conference or how he doesn’t seem to understand how American government works and he doesn’t seem to care.

The problem is economic and social, but at the end of the day the problem is not a what, but a who: Trump voters.

When people start talking about Trump voters, they are discussed as if they are some invaders from another planet, mostly planet KKK. The media and what our President calls the elite, can at times look at them as if they are nothing more than racist rubes that want to go back to the 1950s. Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote in the fall of 2017 about Trump as the first “white president,” meaning he is a President that embodies white supremacy, which means that his voters people who are dealing with racial animus and saw Trump as their vehicle of expression:

The triumph of Trump’s campaign of bigotry presented the problematic spectacle of an American president succeeding at best in spite of his racism and possibly because of it. Trump moved racism from the euphemistic and plausibly deniable to the overt and freely claimed. This presented the country’s thinking class with a dilemma. Hillary Clinton simply could not be correct when she asserted that a large group of Americans was endorsing a candidate because of bigotry. The implications?—?that systemic bigotry is still central to our politics; that the country is susceptible to such bigotry; that the salt-of-the-earth Americans whom we lionize in our culture and politics are not so different from those same Americans who grin back at us in lynching photos; that Calhoun’s aim of a pan-Caucasian embrace between workers and capitalists still endures?—?were just too dark. Leftists would have to cope with the failure, yet again, of class unity in the face of racism. Incorporating all of this into an analysis of America and the path forward proved too much to ask. Instead, the response has largely been an argument aimed at emotion?—?the summoning of the white working class, emblem of America’s hardscrabble roots, inheritor of its pioneer spirit, as a shield against the horrific and empirical evidence of trenchant bigotry.

I don’t doubt that a number of Trump supporters are racists and xenophobes. Anyone who can’t see that is blind. I don’t doubt that race and xenophobia were factors. But that can’t be the whole story. A nation doesn’t go from electing its first black President twice to Trump simply because of race. There has to be something more, something that would make people who voted for Obama go and pull the lever for someone who called Mexicans rapists. Why they might be attracted to Trump? Were they in some way pushed to choose a reality TV show star?

Trump exposed something that we Americans are loathe to talk about?—?class. As hard as it is to talk about race in America, we like to pretend class doesn’t exist. But the fact is,it does and it shows itself in how middle and upper income Americans look at low income Americans, especially those who are poor and white. The well educated in American society tend to view the working class, especially the white working class with contempt. British writer Clive Crook has noticed that coming from class-conscious Britain didn’t prepare him for the way the working class is treated in America:

I’m a British immigrant, and grew up in a northern English working-class town. Taking my regional accent to Oxford University and then the British civil service, I learned a certain amount about my own class consciousness and other people’s snobbery. But in London or Oxford from the 1970s onwards I never witnessed the naked disdain for the working class that much of America’s metropolitan elite finds permissible in 2016.

When my wife and I bought some land in West Virginia and built a house there, many friends in Washington asked why we would ever do that. Jokes about guns, banjo music, in-breeding, people without teeth and so forth often followed. These Washington friends, in case you were wondering, are good people. They’d be offended by crass, cruel jokes about any other group. They deplore prejudice and keep an eye out for unconscious bias. More than a few object to the term, “illegal immigrant.” Yet somehow they feel the white working class has it coming.

The Democrats, which were once known as the party of the working class, slowly but surely shed that title. The party became bifurcated party; a coalition of upscale whites and persons of color.

Where did the white working class go? You probably already know: the GOP. These were the folk that made up the Trump voters. Macomb County, Michigan has always been a trending county. A suburban county of Detroit, the county is made up of working class white voters. This county is where the term “Reagan Democrat” became famous. In 2008 and 2012, Macomb voted for Obama. In 2016, the county went for Trump. As Macomb went, so did the state of Michigan. Macomb went for Obama in ’08 and ’12, which meant Michigan went for Obama. In 2016, when Trump won Macomb, he won Michigan. Hilary Clinton did not spend as much time with the white working class and the result was she lost three states : Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Now, in normal times, the Democrats would try to woo the white working class sort of how Bill Clinton tried to move the party to the center, by winning working class voters. But these aren’t normal times. The Democrats are angry at Trump voters that used to vote for them. Instead of trying to get them back in addition to going after people of color, they seem content in writing off a huge portion of the electorate.

But why did the Democrats lose the working class? Why did Hilary Clinton, who was far more qualified (in spite of her faults) than Donald Trump lose? What are they doing to get themselves back on track?

I think answer is that the Democrats walked away from their working class roots and doubled down on social issues. If Democrats were following writers like Chris Arnade, they would have realized the pain that the working class was facing. When the water crisis struck my hometown of Flint, Michigan, Democrats saw its cause in racial and ideological views. Flint is majority African American and the sitting governor at the time was a Republican. But very few focused on the fact that the reason city came under state control, was partially because Flint lost bled auto industry jobs which meant a loss of population and tax base. Flint lost these jobs because of changes in the auto industry as well as changes in trade rules. This is not a plea for protectionism, but it is and pointing out that a changing economy wrought havoc in places like Flint or Youngstown or Pittsburgh. The Democrats of all parties should have had not just answer, but a way to help a dislocated working class find new jobs and also provide them with governmental assistance in the interim. But the party virtually ignored places like the Rust Belt. On top of that, Hillary Clinton’s comments on coal that came across as uncaring to struggling miners and the Democrats’ growing hesitance to see any downside to immigration made it hard for many to see the Democrats as caring about them. After the stunning loss to Trump, this should have been a time to really reassess what went wrong and how to do better. But it by the time of the Inauguration, the Resistance was up and running and there was no time anymore to learn how to beat Trump in 2020 and win back some of the lost votes.

But if the Dems want to win in 2020, they have to learn why they lost against such a poor candidate or it could happen again.

If the Democrats were not paying attention to the working class, then the Republicans were pretending it was 1981 all over again.

In 2016, the GOP had a large number of people running for President. Most people were thinking the winner was going to be former Florida governor Jeb Bush (Jeb!). None of us thought that Donald Trump was going to win it all, but maybe then maybe no one was paying attention to what was going on. David Frum recounted the mood among many of the candidates that in the end didn’t line up to what GOP voters were thinking:

Republican politicians since the 1980s had spoken a language of “hope” and “opportunity.” They repeated the performance in 2015. “We will lift our sights again, make opportunity common again, get events in the world moving our way again,” declared Jeb Bush in his presidential announcement address. “I want to talk to you this morning about reigniting the promise of America,” saidTed Cruz in his, and Marco Rubio likewise hailed “our nation’s identity as a land of opportunity.”

In short, Republicans were peddling zombie Reaganism. If it worked in the 1980s, it had to work today. Their vision was the same as Reagan’s was nearly 40 years ago: small government and low taxes. But as Frum notes, the voters weren’t buying that message anymore:

“Believe in America!” “A new American century!” What are they talking about?wondered voters battered and bruised by the previous American century. Donald Trump, the oldest candidate on the Republican stage, was also the first to discern that the political language of the 1980s had lost its power. The most common age for white Americans in 2015 was 55. These older white voters were more eager to protect what they had than to hustle for more. They wanted less change, not more. They cared about security, not opportunity. Protection of the status quo was what candidate Trump offered.

Like the Democrats, the Republicans had not paid attention to the pain that working class Americans were facing.

Republicans thought they could present the same economic agenda with better outreach to communities of color and be more tolerant of immigrants. Why the leadership and funders believed in small government and low taxes, the rank and file had a vision of a more active government. Donald Trump could sense that people wanted more government in their lives, not less. Trump sold them that vision by telling the rank and file their Social Security and Medicare would be left alone, that there would be an infrastructure program and the raising of taxes on the rich. If he could mix in a little resentment and tell people to pin the blame on the other, be it black men, Puerto Ricans or immigrants, well, then you got gold.

This is the thing that Never Trumpers on the right and the #Resistance on the left fail to notice. Yes, Trump is a vile racist. Yes, he foments racial and ethnic division much like his European counterparts. But he is able to blend racial animus with the economic and social anxieties of the working class to tell them that he hears them.

If Trump’s message were just racial, I don’t know if he would have got far. But blend that with the shortcomings of trade deals, the opioid crisis, anxieties over immigration and job security, then you have a winning message.

Trump won because he had a vision for the nation. It is a dystopian vision in reality, but it was a vision nonetheless. The problem is that the president’s opponents don’t have a vision for the country. We don’t have an idea of what can give people hope. People who whose jobs may not be around tomorrow, people who see loved ones overdose on heroin, people who wonder if their children will do better than they do. All of these people would look at Clinton and all of the GOP candidates and they didn’t see anyone speaking to them. Trump is not very smart, but he does know how to make emotional pleas, sort of like a dark version of Ronald Reagan. But instead of preaching a message of hope Trump preached a message of resentment taking what might be in the back of people’s minds and blowing it up to be the main cause of people’s pain.

But the problem is that both the Democrats and the #NeverTrump Republicans are so fixated on Trump’s antics and how he is destroying well, everything, we aren’t paying attention what we did wrong in ’16 and how to correct it for ’20. It wouldn’t surprise me that come late in the evening of November 3, 2020 Trump could win a second term because no one learned the mistakes of 2016.

Donald Trump’s win in 2016 wasn’t a fluke. Certain trends brought him to office. To make sure he isn’t granted a second term, you have to learn what went wrong and adjust the political parties to meet those needs.

But I’m not positive that this will happen two years hence. So, expect a disappointing night 2 years and three months from now.


Originally published at Medium.

Staff Writer

Dennis Sanders is the Associate Pastor at First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Minneapolis, MN.  You can follow Dennis through his blogs, The Clockwork Pastor and Big Tent Revue and on Twitter.  Feel free to contact him at dennis.sanders(at)gmail(dot)com.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

79 thoughts on “Ignoring the Lessons of Donald Trump

  1. But blend that with the shortcomings of trade deals, the opioid crisis, anxieties over immigration and job security

    One of the problems with the american working class is that they expected that a highschool education would get them the same lifestyle in an era in which everyone and their dog has a high school education or better as they would have gotten in an era in which only first world countries managed to universally educate everyone till high school.

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • @atomickristin While I agree with you, I think it’s also important to realize that Murali is not American and thus by definition really not whom Dennis was talking about in his criticisms.

        I’m sure I have a million mistaken theories about Singapore that I’m happy to spout at the least encouragement; Murali at least has the advantage of having lived here.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • :
          I really don’t see how that could be even vaguely relevant.
          Murali stands on his own right, even were he from Atlantis or the Moon.
          Same with the counter-argument.

          Here, I would say Murali over-estimates the importance of education (more properly, the available education system).
          AK, OTOH, sees something sinister about class.
          There are also certain unstated assumptions built-in to both.

          To my way of thinking, very much in line with my training, class is both inevitable and desirable.
          Those to whom scarcity concerns dominate, those to whom quality concerns dominate, and those to whom presentation concerns dominate.
          You can see there is considerable overlap where “the working class” is to be carved out.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • I was merely pointing out that Dennis S. said the problems were with Americans who had certain behaviors, and Kristin’s response to Murali sort of implied, “see, you’re who Dennis was talking about.”

            Given that Dennis was talking specifically about an American context, Murali wasn’t who Dennis was talking about.

            Context does matter in questions of who needs to change, or doesn’t.

            I wasn’t talking about the arguments themselves.

              Quote  Link

            Report

    • Not everyone can get a college degree and if they could and did, a college degree would also be worth nothing.

      Do you really expect people to take the idea that they should/“deserve” to live precarious existences passively?

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I think Murali is closer here than Saul.
        Around 1981-82, 50% of the American workforce had a high school diploma.
        At some point in the late 1990’s (around 1997), 79% of the American workforce had a bachelor’s degree.

        The real growth in worker productivity, however, reflects the movement of women into the workforce.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  2. Good to see you posting Dennis. I agree that it is important to figure out any underlying dynamics to Trump’s win. So while his win was certainly fluky since any win that includes losing the pop vote by 2.9 mil and with interference by a foreign power that had some effect even if it was marginal. I guess i’m contractually obligated to put these things any post about Trump.

    The D’s certainly has in rhetoric had not been offering anything to the WWC but did enact policy that tangibly helped them (ACA). Trump finagled that by lying that he would just make it better with no explanation and ignoring what the R’s would inevitably do which is cut it. Clinton was the wrong candidate to be able to parry bold lying. Add to that the D’s mediocre electoral strategies ( candidates, messaging, turn out) can easily explain Trump’s win.

    Our discourse is unsuited to talking about who wins and loses with different policies. Certainly people had done that with globalazation. Of course as has been repeatedly pointed out, upscale R’s voted for Trump just fine. Those people had done fine with our economic shifts. Working class areas had suffered. But of course how much have we put in to rebuild any poor/downwardly mobile area in the last few decades. Not really much .Partly this is because there isn’t always much that can be done in some cases and it requires spending a lot of money if it is going to be done.

    What to do? In some ways the D’s are doing the right thing by moving left. Give the people more of an alternative than D’s preaching a similar economic message to R’s with just more social safety net. I’m all for that safety net btw. But the centrist D message led them to be not that far from R’s. Oddly as the D’s moved to the center in the 90’s and had a not at all radical prez in Obama, partisanship skyrocketed with R’s moving right. Centrist D’s weakened their own base but never brought many R’s over.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • So while his win was certainly fluky since any win that includes losing the pop vote by 2.9 mil and with interference by a foreign power that had some effect even if it was marginal.

      IMHO, this is irrelevant because in a sane world where the political casteclass were not so busy naval gazing as to miss the points Dennis is making, Trump should have been about as attractive as Rick Santorium, at best.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • This is the problem. What do we do? We can’t beat Trump or Trumpism by lying. They’re better and more shameless at it, their supporters don’t care, and they won’t be swayed by whatever lies we come up with. Having actual policies designed to help the WWC (not to mention the WC period), as opposed to Trumpist or standard-issue Republican policies that make their lives worse, doesn’t seem to do it. If the WWC resents the urban elites, that’s just the way it has always been; the “smart kids” who eventually moved on in life were rarely popular in middle school. And it never mattered what the “smart kids” said or thought about the eventual members of the WWC, who almost always started it.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • I love this piece, I think it’s fantastic, I wish I would have written it myself. Really appreciate your message and thoughts.

      Ditto, all that.

      But if the Dems want to win in 2020, they have to learn why they lost against such a poor candidate or it could happen again.

      Shifting from talking about *ism to talking about class would be hard… and I doubt it would matter.

      Trump was shockingly weak, but next time he’ll be VERY strong. 4+% growth means the Trump voters were right to put him in there. Trump will be the safer candidate, the known evil.

      ——————–
      (DM channels a Trump voter): I have a problem with rabbits & there have been issues with break ins, so I buy a dog. The dog is oversexed and mates with inappropriate objects. The dog fence fights with every other dog he runs into and has dominance issues. All of my neighbors have complained.

      The bunny population has fled. The number of break ins has been zero. I don’t like my neighbors (and if they don’t like dead bunnies being left all over the place whatever). The dog fixed the Gorsuch vs Garland thing (kids!).

      The dog isn’t pretty, or elegant, or subtle, but he’s doing everything I want him to do and the people who are unhappy didn’t want stuff to be done at all. I’m sure there are dogs who could give me everything I want without the drama but until he gets hit by a car I’m good with what I got.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Love the dog analogy DM – I think it’s not far off. Dems still banking (to a degree) on him imploding or being impeached. And why not. He’s an easy target and does almost everything in the worst way possible. But the longer he goes without apocalyptic catastrophe the more “normal” he becomes.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  3. I think you are right on track with this piece Dennis. One thing that often occurs to me is the rise of many similar things in the world right now; Brexit, Austria’s new premier, the Italian gov’t, Australia’s immigration policy, etc. Those things tell me that it isn’t solely DT, but is more of a worldwide phenomenon.

    But with the economy doing as well as it has been, there are fewer points to challenge him on. So, I think you are correct, in two years it will not be a good night for the D’s.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  4. I’m gonna dissent from the general consensus here, for a couple reasons, which is probably not surprising.

    Arguing that Trump won because he appealed to the working class, or at least the portion of the working class that is white, is not entirely wrong, but it’s… very limited.

    Because if he’d only gotten them to come out for him, he would have lost catastrophically, not won narrowly.

    #NeverTrumpers are a small minority of the GOP. They were before the election, and they’re, if anything, a smaller minority now. He retained, and retains, the support of the vast majority of the party that nominated him. Lots of people who make six figures and go to work in suits. And a small but crucial number of people who make eight figures and cut eye-wateringly huge checks to politicians.

    Including most of the ones who were and, hell, still are small government ideologues.

    I get the desire to focus on voters who seemingly switched allegiance [1], but the large majority of people who voted for Trump were Romney-Trump voters. And while I’m absolutely certain Mr Sanders isn’t doing this here in this piece, the impulse to frame this in terms of class all too often seems to lead people to project responsibility onto a group of people who are remote in terms of class and geography, allowing people to avoid the kind of reckoning he calls for here.

    It’s left me very suspicious of the approach, even when it’s undertaken in obvious good faith, and with equally obvious good intentions.

    [1] Though I kind of wonder why the assumption is that people’s votes in 2016, rather than 2008, were the ones most profoundly driven be economic anxieties. The economy was vastly worse when Obama was elected!

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • [1] Though I kind of wonder why the assumption is that people’s votes in 2016, rather than 2008, were the ones most profoundly driven be economic anxieties. The economy was vastly worse when Obama was elected!

      In 2008 other issues dominated. First Black President & the War. There was no doubt that the economy was suffering but the Great One was expected to fix things.

      And he did. The Obama recovery started a few months after he took office in 2009. By 2016 people had been told this was what victory looked like for 7 years.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I mean the economy was straight up shrinking, unemployment was hitting the double digits, and shit was generally on fire.

        McCain was drawing dead anyway [1], but he really bungled the issue.

        [1] And he was a poorer candidate than I expected. The GOP really would have been better off with Romney in ’08 even though he would have lost too, if not by quite as much.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I mean the economy was straight up shrinking, unemployment was hitting the double digits, and shit was generally on fire.

          And the Dems (and the GOP) were willing to deal with it, thus the stim, the TARP, etc. So the world is on fire and the choice is between two firefighters.

          What didn’t exist was “this is your lot in life you deplorables, you live with it“.

          Or if you want better spin on that statement, “economic growth is simply impossible”.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • That’s one take, but the other, which seems to be at least as plausible, is that the 2016 election was a regression to the mean (or reversion to the existing trend), and 2008 was the outlier.

            2012 Obama was the incumbent, so it’s a little different.

              Quote  Link

            Report

    • Arguing that Trump won because he appealed to the working class, or at least the portion of the working class that is white, is not entirely wrong, but it’s… very limited.

      This. The Trump election has us taught several things, and here is the actual basic history of what happened:

      1) Internally, the Republican party hollowed itself out of…actual solutions to any problems Americans had. They somehow managed to get away with this for several decades, it arguably started in the 60, pushing an agenda that had nothing for anyone, because that is what their donors wanted.

      And I will admit the Democrats followed this trend also, at times. Both parties did this to some level, became bought and paid by for donors. But in areas where the political donors left them alone, the Democrats actually had policy, and the Republican mostly did not. (Yes, yes, the Repulicans had two social issues to scream about, but those were always rather fringe, and got even more over time.)

      This is somewhat faint praise for the Democrats, that they only did things that don’t upset their donors too much, but at least they appear to have independent goals they wanted to do instead of the Republicans basically seeming to get into office for the express purpose of cutting the taxes of rich people. (Note I said Democrats ‘appear’ to have those things. Whether they actually have such goals is not relevant here, the perception of such goals is.)

      2) Because the Republican party was not, uh, actually trying to do anything for anyone, which makes it hard to convince people to vote for them, the leadership of the right managed to ratchet up partisanship to inconceivable levels. With a basically gibberish hatred of everything the left did and turning them into little better than Satan. The Republican party, lacking anything to stand for or try to do except stuff that was very unpopular like cut government services, became the anti-Democrat party, because that was the only way to win elections.

      3) The Republican party, at some point, managed to delude itself that the vast majority of Republican voters were in favor of these donor-centric policies, when in fact the majority of those voters actually somewhat loathed them, and were only voting Republican because…the Democrats were actual literal Satan.

      4) It actually turns out the vast majority of voters just are party voters and don’t give a damn about how unfit a candidate is.

      And…then we got Trump. He got the nomination based on #1 and #3, and got elected based on a combination of #2 and #4.

      Trying to focus on ‘the Democrats only did things that don’t upset their donors too much’ is a pretty nonsensical lesson to learn from all that, because #2 and #4, things Democrats have no control over at all, were much bigger factors. It’s like watching a basketball game that ended 84-83 and blaming your team’s loss on a specific missed shot. That’s not how that works.

      If we want to talk about what the Democrats should have done, here it is:

      They should have denormalized the Republican party a _decade_ ago. At least by the end of the 90s.

      Stopped acting like they were serious actors in the political space, stopped working with them at all. For too long, they were allowed to demonize Democrats and then walk into Congress and work with Democrats. No. At the very start…the second they praised Limbaugh or refused to condemn a picture of Hillary with devil horns, just flatly rejected them as an actual political entity and clearly stated why to the media.

      That, right there, was the actual Democratic mistake: Refusing to accept, and deal with in any manner, the fact the other party was slipping into spittle-spraying lunacy.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Actually, there’s a fun question:

        Let’s say you can give advice to a political party in the past, but you _can’t_ mention (Or hint at, no clever cheating) any specific things or people or elections.

        Like, you can’t tell Hillary to focus on specific state or warn about Trump…but you can warn the Democrats about overconfidence and trying to run up the count in states they were going to win anyway. Or warn the Republicans about demagogues in a general sense.

        But go farther back than the last election. What advice would people give the parties, and when? Assume this advice is public (If you’re telling the entire party it is going to leak) and you are…vaguely trusted, so they might follow it if it seems reasonable, but might not if it doesn’t.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • the leadership of the right managed to ratchet up partisanship to inconceivable levels. With a basically gibberish hatred of everything the left did and turning them into little better than Satan.

        This is the Dem analogue to an NBA player from whom the ball has just been stolen flailing about in Oscar-worthy fashion trying to get to the free throw line.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  5. There’s a lot to chew on here. For starters, I certainly agree that a good chunk of Trump’s success was tapping into a perceived and real unmet need in the current political discourse. Plus, figuring out how to serve people’s needs is pretty much a Kantian imperative of a small d democratic political system.

    I disagree, though, on a lot of the small details you use in this piece. Trump’s victory was very narrow, based entirely switching and/or turning out a relatively small number of voters overall between 2012 and 2016 in states that happened to be close enough to matter. E.g. 500k in Florida, 300k in Pennsylvania, 200k in Michigan. Nationally of course, Trump still lost by almost 3 million people.

    I think there’s a nuance in the class argument. It is certainly the case that Trump overperformed among white people with only high school education compared with recent republicans, and similarly underperformed among those with college degrees; the former being a larger swing than the latter, and a decisive one. But (& this is from memory, I can’t find these numbers offhand, and so I could be wrong), if you still control for income, lower income whites still voted for Clinton more than Trump.

    The silly stuff people argue about online indicating nobody’s learned anything is not quite borne out by the elections we’ve had since Trump’s elected. I can’t think of any Republican that’s had an easy straightforward victory, meeting or exceeding the historical trend for that race. On the contrary, every one has been a pitched battle, and the Democrats have scored some major upsets.

    Your bit about Reagan I agree with, but it stirs up an interesting thought. Perhaps Trump win the Republican nomination because he was the only one that *was* able to tap into a key component of the Reagan coalition – those Reagan Democrats. Who are now, 35 years later, at the tail end of a political re-alignment they were in the middle of back in the day, just Republicans.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  6. Looking away from Trump is the easiest thing in the world. He’s boring. Or, rather, he’s attention-grabbing in the same way that a six-year-old is, but that’s incredibly boring after five minutes.

    I’m still very interested in politics and policy, but I’ve found over the last 10 years of intellectually-stunted child presidents that it’s just not worth paying attention to people with nothing to say.

    The last president I could listen to was Bush Senior. He was a poor public speaker, but I believed he was generally telling the truth, and he was intellectually alive in a time of great change. Clinton bothered me. A beautiful speaker, but if you were familiar at all with policy, you knew that most of what he said was false. W couldn’t speak. He was a good man, but boy he couldn’t speak.. Obama, well, I’m the only person on earth who thinks of this current administration as Obama’s third term. Lies, pettiness, incompetence, grandstanding.

    There’s nothing easier than looking away from a car wreck. Traffic may slow down around it, as other people stare, but that doesn’t mean you have to.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  7. Why do white workers hear Trump’s economic message, but the black guy working alongside him doesn’t?

    The “economic anxiety” rationale has become a punchline, for a reason.

    If a white worker voted for Trump as someone to advance his economic interest, one would expect that worker to have become disenchanted, even outraged, at the persistent war on workers that Trump has waged since taking office.

    Yet, they don’t. Those who supported him in November 2016, still do.

    So Trump is obviously delivering what they wanted. And just as obviously, what they wanted was not a pro-worker program or anything having to do with economics.

    On the other side of the aisle, it takes a willful blindness to not see the economic vision from the Democrats- ranging from protecting Obamacare, to Medicare for all, to tuition free college, to higher minimum wage.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I tend to (partially) agree with here

      So Trump is obviously delivering what they wanted. And just as obviously, what they wanted was not a pro-worker program or anything having to do with economics.

      I don’t think the OP is correct when it says

      But Trump is President for a reason. (No, the answer is not Russia.) He is the Commander-in-Chief because both political parties had nothing to offer to an electorate that was upset and looking for someone, anyone to listen to them.

      Yes, he’s a crook and a liar and a jerk. But he was able to say the right words to get people to vote for him. The problems that elected Donald Trump are still problems. As long as his opponents (and I include myself) don’t attend to those problems with solutions, Trump will continue to be a problem.

      The famous “the mines will close” speach is full of policies aimed at solving the problems of the miners. The Democratic platform is full of policies on how to address in the real world the problems of Flint or West Virginia. Totally, the Dems indeed proposed a way to help a dislocated working class find new jobs and also provide them with governmental assistance in the interim.

      It’s just that those voters did not want those solutions. What they want is to return to a world it no longer exists. The Democrats can’t do that. Trump can’t do that. Is just that he had no problem in lying and saying he will Make America Great Again, that is, Make My Life What It Used To Be Again(*).

      So, Trump was able to say the right words to get people to vote for him.. What he can’t, and has no intention of trying to, is attend to those problems with solutions. Quite the contrary, his actual policies are making the problems worse, while he continues to say the right words to get people to vote for him.

      Yes, Hillary was an inept campaigner. She had sixteen bullet points for each issue. But she was mostly right on every issue. It’s just that the Trump voters did not want solutions. They just wanted their problems to go away. That’s not happening. The challenge is how to explain this, and win the election.

      (*) There’s a class component to Make My Life What It Used To Be Again : the white working class was not, in yore times, the bottom of the totem. There were plenty of people below. It just happened they weren’t white, or (Protestant) Christian. Some were not even male.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  8. I, too, enjoyed this piece quite a bit. So, let me quote something that may seem irrelevant:

    “The modern world of economic competition and shifting social relations places the individual in a situation where change and uncertainty are the keynotes. Fixed or permanent adjustments become impossible. The world moves and the individual must continually readjust himself. The possibility that he will not do this with complete success is greater than ever before. Social maladjustment, whether slight or great, then becomes characteristic of modern man.”

    The writer, Everett Stonequist, was an American sociologist and one of the pioneers in studying “marginality”, be it cultural, ethnic, or “occupational”. The book, “The Marginal Man”, is from 1937.

    When people talk about “late capitalism” I think they’re suggesting it’s on its way out, and I think “Okay, well, capitalism sure looked pretty ‘late’ in the 1920s and 1930s too!” But, of course, we saw all of these same political struggles back then. When people feel marginalized by large systems that are beyond their control, they seek some measure of control over their own lives. They look for someone to vote for who can hear them and “feel your pain” AND voice their resentments. The Democrats seem to be much better than the Republicans at addressing the pain caused by systemic racism and sexism- and good on them! In terms of class, I don’t know- some of them are better than others.

    But, look, the post-war society was founded on a social contract that was broken by the late 70s and no party has been very good at taking the full measure of what that means for social cohesion or political stability, or even for people’s everyday lives. I suspect, though, that most of us find “Of course you’re pissed off! You have every right to be!” a far less patronizing message than “I feel your pain”.

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • Well, right- back then, the sexual predator who was running on the phony populist platform appealing to the working class only to turn around and pass measures that decimated the gains of the working class was a Democrat. So, it was a slightly different world.

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • Group memberships tends to become more important in times of uncertainty or instability, I posit.
      I see this as the driving factor in the plethora of hyphenated Americans.
      All it is saying is that the present set-up just isn’t working for a lot of people.
      For as long as they remain separate, it will stay that way. Maybe longer.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  9. I enjoyed this piece a lot.

    I wonder if the Democrats will have a candidate that people will be able to vote *FOR* next election, or if they’re just going to throw another Kerry at Trump.

    As such, I still find myself wondering which, between Trump and Clinton, was the accelerationist candidate.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  10. I remember living in Virginia and taking a trip to WV to go river rafting with some highly educated colleagues. There were comments along the line Dennis makes, whereas when I looked at the country and people there, it felt more like being at home.

    And yeah, this is definitely a motivator for a lot of voters. They feel like second-class citizens in the country their people built. That’s not good. I can’t stand Breitbart.com, but the reference to “deplorables” was a terrible rhetorical mistake.

    We’ve found it difficult to reconcile the struggle for racial/gender equality and the struggle for economic/class equality. They are both problems. How do we bridge these?

    I think that there were probably a lot of third-party sock puppets during the spring of 2016 there to just stir things up between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters. I recall there being no end of people whom I’d never heard from before jumping into discussion threads and making outrageous claims.

    Meanwhile, I think we Democrats need a clearer message, that is uncluttered with qualifications, while making it clear that the qualifications are likely to apply. For instance “Medicare for All” is one. The answer to “how do you pay for it?” is “We’ve got a half-dozen ideas, and we’ll probably come up with more as we negotiate. Right now we’re just going to talk about what our goals are and what we’re going to fight for.” I think that’s fine as a political message.

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • Make no mistake. I do not think there’s any such thing as an America without black people.

        AND, there’s no such thing as an America without Appalachia, either. Both of these things are true. Why do we have so much trouble holding both of them in our heads?

        Yeah, the history of black Americans is worse. This isn’t a moral equivalence. It’s a question of why people insist I have to choose whom I love. Why can’t I love them both? Do we really think America doesn’t have the resources to help both groups? Is this a zero-sum game? Many think so, but not me.

        I mean, for so many people there is sympathy for one group and approbation for the other. It makes me feel like I have no constituency at all.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I care about both groups, absolutely. My mother-in-law, whom I adore, is from Harlan County.

          But if you talk about the history of WV, and you’re talking about white people exclusively (which I will note Chip had NO proof whatsoever you were doing), and you’re talking about who built the country…. it’s kind of like slavery didn’t happen. Like there wasn’t one group of people whose backs the other group of people used to get ahead.

          Personally I think putting Appalachian miners, etc., in the category of “people whose [nonexistent] financial get-ahead depended on slavery” is a category error… but it’s pretty complicated and messy.

          FWIW, one of the things that frustrates me is that sometimes I feel like no one who is anti-“deplorable” even realizes that “majority-white” and “exclusively white” are not the same thing. There are African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic-Americans (heyo, Tyson Foods!), etc., in those communities as well, just as frustrated and as desperate.

          If I could make everyone watch one movie this week, it’d be Remote Area Medical – a documentary that’s streaming on Netflix still, I’m pretty sure – about a non-profit that goes into Appalachia and does popup clinics for everyone there (non-shockingly, this is not “just white people”) who is suffering horrendous things because they can’t find the care they need. The dental stuff is particularly heart-rending. (Since the time the documentary was made, they’ve also started doing these popups in LA and Chicago.)

          For those that don’t want to watch a whole documentary, there’s also https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/nov/23/enormous-pop-up-clinic-trying-bridge-americas-health-divide, from 2016.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • I lied, it’s not on Netflix anymore, it’s on Amazon now (looks like Starz picked it up). But I’d recommend it anyway, worth the 4-6 bucks you’ll pay or the effort of subscribing to a free trial of one of the 3 channels that have it.

              Quote  Link

            Report

          • This reasoning cuts the other way, too, of course.

            Polling has something like 60% of whites without college degrees (which I tend to think of as an OK-ish proxy for “working class”) supporting Trump and shy of 40% disapproving.

            Now, that’s a big margin in his favor, but it still means 2 in 5 people in that group don’t approve of him.

            And sure, Trump cleaned up in West Virginia (489 371 votes, or 68%!) but he actually got more votes (494 548) in New York City.

              Quote  Link

            Report

          • My people come from the upper plains and the Pacific NW. It’s just that when I was in Appalachia, it seemed pretty familiar.

            In my home county, there are lots of Native Americans, and I went to school with lots of them. There is at least one black man in my family tree, my dad showed me the the chart once where he fit in. It was in Missouri. Mostly we are Germans, but a long way back.

            Slavery didn’t have much to do with the Pacific NW, it might seem. And yet, in Bellingham there is a landmark known as the Pickett house. George Pickett, of Pickett’s Charge, lived there when he was stationed by the Army to the NW.

            (https://www.cob.org/services/planning/historic/buildings/Pages/george-pickett-house.aspx)

            It’s all connected.

            I do not think it makes sense for white people like me to wallow in shame and guilt for things long past. I think that shame and guilt prevents us from doing exactly the things that might improve things. I think we’re observing that today. I think it is ultimately healthier to stare this stuff down. To look it in the eye, to acknowledge all the things that were done to give us a better life on the backs of racially slanted policies and decisions, and walk forward without the shame.

            James Baldwin said, “when the white man learns to love himself, there will be no race problem.” That is my program. We aren’t going to learn to love ourselves while running away from this, and pretending it didn’t happen.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • Well, I agree with you, at least in part, which is why I think it’s important to qualify phrases like “who built this country” with more complexity and nuance. Speaking with more complexity and nuance, and effort to think about everyone involved, about the racialized history of the US – to not broadcast the same signals as people with very different, morally repugnant views – is very different from wallowing in shame or guilt.

                Quote  Link

              Report

        • Is this a zero-sum game?

          If the modifier to “working class” is “white” then yes absolutely it is a zero sum game.

          MAGA, AKA revanchism, meaning “return to some status quo ante”, is a zero sum game. It means rolling back decades of changes which have improved the lives of tens of millions of us.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Equating WWC and MAGA is what Trump wants us to do… and most of the rest of the 1 percenters, frankly. Pitting different sections of the working class and middle class against each other has been a useful tactic since medieval times.

            Just because a majority of *them*, in their desperation, have fallen for this equation and started to tolerate all kinds of shit they wouldn’t have before, is not reason for *us* to accept the equivalence on behalf of the entire group.

            Nor is endorsing the equivalence going to help change that vector.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • I’m not suggesting it is.
              Hilary won the working class overall, in fact.

              What I’m referring to is anyone whose first descriptor of themself is “white”.

              Because for the Trumpists, whiteness is the first and most important part of their identity, primary above class, religion, regional culture or any other part of their makeup.

              Hilary never promised to put coal miners out of work. She promised to help them, in fact.

              But elite scorn was what the Trump fans heard, the excuse they needed to prioritize white ethnic resentment over their economic well being. And even now when Trump is literally taking money out of their pockets, they cling to him because of that priority.

              Over on the other thread we are seeing this play out.
              The Democrats are accused of having this crazy rabid leftwing insurgence, a populist base of working class voters with radical ideas like a higher minimum wage, free college, and Medicare for all.

              And how do these out of work Trump voters feel about these proposals, which would have an immediate benefit to them?

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • You’re suggesting it is when you jump straight from Appalachian woes to race woes, actually. never even said what his friends’ ethnic identities were, or how primarily they valued them, you guessed. You’re the one putting primarily white-identified people into this thread (in your follow up comment), and then blaming the discourse.

                I barely know any Appalachians personally (not none, but a lot fewer than some folks of other regional origins), and I still know Appalachians who are black, Native American, and most commonly of all, mixed-race. And they weren’t happy at all about Hilary Clinton. I mean, most of them voted for her, but they didn’t feel like she gave a crap about them. They just feared Trump more.

                Blaming Appalachian people for the failures of Michigan, Wisconsin, etc., strikes me as a coastal error, anyway. I’m not saying the folks who went MAGA-or-bust in Appalachia *aren’t* gravely and in many cases shamefully mistaken. But those folks have had those errors for a long time. I’d be tons more worried about Wisconsin and Iowa voters, than shaming Appalachians, were I a Democratic strategist.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • I appreciate your thoughts, and they are pretty much the same as mine.

                  Yes, if someone defines themselves by their whiteness, that’s a problem. Shaming them isn’t going to change their mind, though, it’s just going to reinforce the divide. There’s a bunch of people who don’t do that, though, and they can be won over.

                  They wanted to “bring back coal” or “bring back jobs”. Those things are lies. They can’t be done. We need a program that moves things forward, not looks backward. We can sell such a program. Something like 25% of the country is unreachable, so don’t pay attention to them. Don’t let them define our agenda, either.

                  There’s another 75% that is reachable. Focus on that.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

        • I’ve been wondering about regional perspectives on some of this. There are no states in the Census Bureau’s 13-state West where blacks are the largest minority group and several where they are not the second largest. I would bet that if I polled my local (Colorado) friends, “Appalachia” is mostly just a place they read about. The Great Plains, OTOH, with poverty, shrinking population, and vanishing jobs problems that have been going on longer than Appalachia’s, they know.

            Quote  Link

          Report

    • Meanwhile, I think we Democrats need a clearer message, that is uncluttered with qualifications, while making it clear that the qualifications are likely to apply. For instance “Medicare for All” is one. The answer to “how do you pay for it?” is “We’ve got a half-dozen ideas, and we’ll probably come up with more as we negotiate. Right now we’re just going to talk about what our goals are and what we’re going to fight for.” I think that’s fine as a political message.

      Spin won’t change the $33 Trillion dollar bill.

      Basically we’re talking about a $3 Trillion a year increase in gov spending… which brings us to Dems promising free medical care and the flinching away from how much it’d cost.

      I think it’s possible to get elected on that, but it’s beyond white elephant territory, you’re seriously setting yourself up for failure.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Are you frightened by big numbers in general or just when talking about government spending? Because here’s some numbers off the top of my head: Last year I paid ~$12k in premiums to my company healthcare plan. My company contributed another $12k. Then there’s the deductibles, copays, out-of-network stuff, and crap they just decide not to cover. That’s around $30k for two adults and a child. Roughly extrapolate that to the total U.S. population and we’re north of $3T. We’re already spending that (at least I am) so where’s the OMG?

        I mean… I fully realize that shifting that spending from the private sector to the public sets your teeth on edge, but otherwise? If MFA results in greater overall spending, a doubtful proposition but let’s go with that for argument’s sake, that increase is mostly tied to people who currently need healthcare but aren’t receiving it, which bothers me not at all. It’s actually a big part of the whole point.

        As far as who pays, my taxes would have to increase by a factor of ten just to have my situation break even. As it stands this shit is killing me financially. If the 20%ers pay more I’m fine with that; just looking out for number one, ya know? Perfectly symmetrical with what I assume your reason is for opposing it.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • Are you frightened by big numbers in general…

          A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is just a statistic. EVERYONE should be deeply concerned about economic decisions which involve Trillions of dollars of fresh spending, much less fresh yearly spending.

          That’s an absurdly large undertaking with lots of room for economic disruption, mismanagement, and unforeseen consequences. Worse you’re assuming that estimate is just a straight absorption as though the gov isn’t involved in HC at all right now. We already spend more than $1.2 Trillion a year on Medicare/Medicaid.

          My assumption is an extra 3.3 Trillion is an extra 3.3 Trillion. That’s on top of the $1.2 Trillion we already pay, and it’s seriously unclear how much of the $2.1 Trillion from the rest of the economy we actually get back. Unhappy path is “none”. More realistically we get “some but hardly all” because our politicians won’t have the spine to end millions of well paying jobs so we get another layer of bureaucracy bolted onto our current system.

          That’s around $30k for two adults and a child. Roughly extrapolate that to the total U.S. population and we’re north of $3T. We’re already spending that (at least I am) so where’s the OMG?

          Picture paying twice that with no benefit to yourself. I think that’s worth an OMG. Or, somewhat more realistically, picture paying $50k in taxes (assumes 50% savings off that $2.1T) for worse service than what we have now.

          If MFA results in greater overall spending, a doubtful proposition but let’s go with that for argument’s sake…

          We would be handing out lots of free benefits, removing gatekeepers, dramatically increasing demand, we SHOULD expect the new system to cost a LOT more. The way these programs die at a state level is spending explodes until the budget breaks.

          …that increase is mostly tied to people who currently need healthcare but aren’t receiving it, which bothers me not at all. It’s actually a big part of the whole point.

          So you’re perfectly good with paying $30k for coverage and another $15k-30k in taxes for other people? “Flinch away from the costs” was not an exaggeration.

          More than likely it’s impossible to pay these kind of numbers so we “shave” corners somewhere… which means what? Large scale wait lists and waiting? Serious death panels? If we’re serious about these kinds of plans we need to get real comfortable arguing that death panels are a good, needed thing… but that implies our brave politicians are willing to stand up to seniors and let them die.

          The good news is I’ve seen reports claiming the Trump plan for reducing costs is to force HCP to publish prices on their websites (this would work). The bad news is this would require an act of Congress and we’ll probably have an election before it comes up.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • You know the Koch backed mercatus Center published a study on medicare-for-all which used your big scary 32 trillion-dollar line what is not in the headlines is the fact that says that’s like 2 to 3 trillion less than we’re going to be spending any way. And we actually cover everybody with M4A.
            so is your complaint just that it’s paid to taxes?

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • When there was a single-payer ballot initiative in Colorado, my perception was the argument against that got traction wasn’t that it would be inefficient, or cost the citizens more overall — it was that it would double the size of the state/local government in terms of dollars collected and spent. That seems to be the argument that gets the most traction at all levels — that another 10% of GDP would be routed through the government.

                Quote  Link

              Report

          • also I think you’re dropping a thread here he’s not going to be paying his 30k he’s just going to be paying the taxes that’s the point for having a system that covers everybody with no front end pricing. prevention is cheaper than cure and people put off prevention cuz they can’t see doctors cuz it cost money.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • …prevention is cheaper than cure…

              This is a slogan, but when we try to make policy on it we find it’s not true.

              Most “preventions” don’t actually prevent anything so you need LOTS of preventions to forgo even one cure. The body tends to heal itself even without treatment.

              Obviously there are exceptions (ex: vaccinations) where it’s massively to society’s benefit, i.e. “cheaper” to prevent/treat everyone (as in “everyone”).

                Quote  Link

              Report

        • Oh, man. Even by the *Nation*’s standards, that is some truly sewer-grade journalism. It’s clearly stated in the abstract (bolding mine) that the $32.6 trillion is a conservative lower-bound estimate, and that costs will likely be higher. I’m not saying that John Nichols is definitely a liar, but only because I think there’s a good chance that he’s simply incompetent and didn’t even bother to read the abstract.

          The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act (M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.

          This also doesn’t take into account the increased deadweight loss from dramatically higher tax rates.

            Quote  Link

          Report

  11. An excellent piece, Dennis, and much I could agree with here.

    I was thinking today of an alternative narrative, one based on the notion that the institutional forces weighing on Congress are felt at present among the electorate.
    Congress was specifically designed to maintain the status quo, or, when not, to over-react erratically.
    The Trump presidency is a result of those forces acting on the electorate as well. In a rejection of the status quo, an erratic over-reaction ensued.
    More to come, more likely than not.

    However, the coming dominance of Latin organized crime will most probably rise above all other issues in urgency.
    The scope of the problem will dwarf the immigrant communities of Jews, Italians, and Irish of the early XX c.
    These are Mexicans, and they know how to fall in line. They will inevitably link together.
    Sure, they will each fight for their place. But when that fighting is done, they will sit down to dinner, each knowing his place.
    Although their manner is typically more friendly and laid-back than what may be expected, they have a fierce loyalty that runs deep. My assessment: Easier to infiltrate, more difficult to penetrate in a meaningful manner.

    And the real culprits here are the law enforcement unions and their “victims’ groups” political front organizations, the bulk of prosecutors (who generally believe they work for the law enforcement unions), the ethics oversight boards which permit such persons to continue to practice law, the tolerance of federal law enforcement of organized crime in state and local government (generally, what would clearly be racketeering in the context of a union of coal miners or carpenters is somehow acceptable in law enforcement personnel), and a judiciary who view it as their primary task to place a heavy thumb on the scales of justice in favor of the state.
    Of course, the media as well, who tend to keep us focused on petty crimes of aberrant youth while the Ken Lays of the world go without even a hint of a bad word until they can no longer restrain it. All the time we were worried about criminals, when the outlaws were carrying the badges.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Your paragraph on “Latin organized crime” seems out of place among the rest of your comment / not especially relevant to the question of US elections.

      I realize you are not talking about all Mexicans or anything like it, but if there’s a good link up there, I would need a lot more lines drawn for me to understand it.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • The illusion of transparency.

        The policies directed toward Latinos these days are form-fit to generate organized crime; not incidentally, but at the behest of law enforcement unions and their political front organizations.
        We know that from the study of organized crime in the immigrant communities of the Italians, Irish, and Jews in the early Twentieth Century. We are pursuing those same policies now, though not unknowingly, as was done before. This time, it is purposefully to generate greater career opportunities for law enforcement personnel, and it is fairly effective at it.

        By “Mexicans,” I mean Mexican nationals, as opposed to Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Nicaraguans, or any other group.

        I noted this as a coming dominance far beyond what we have seen.
        It is the scope of the problem, that targeting Latinos in the early 21st c. comprises a far greater number of people than the Italian, Irish, and Jewish populations of the early 20th c. in terms of ratio of total population (and likely of total assets as well).
        Our political system will likely soon be split between two shadow governments.

        I really don’t see much hope.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I see.

          Well, there’s a lot there I think you’re mistaken about, but there are also facts I know too, such that I can see where you’re drawing your conclusions from. At least now it all hangs together for me and doesn’t seem so completely random and dropped in to the conversation.

          Thank you for explaining. I really appreciate it.

            Quote  Link

          Report

            • Q-Anon is a deeply weird conspiracy theory that is espoused by a certain group of particularly unhinged Trump supporters and alt-right adjacent types.

              It is pretty confusing, as most such conspiracy theories are, but… while I share ‘s doubt about your theory, it’s vastly more cogent than anything that comes out of Q-Anon, and involves a fundamental skepticism of law enforcement that is almost the antithesis of Q-Anon, which is deeply authoritarian and revolves around a secret law enforcement operation to bust secret pedophile rings at the highest level of society.

              So I don’t think it’s a fair comparison at all.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • Thank you, , for that explanation.

                Now that I understand it, I am offended.
                That was *WAY* out-of-line.

                Not a “conspiracy theory” at all.
                Cross-disciplinary study.

                As a political science minor at University of Illinois – Springfield, I was permitted to take 400-level courses, in addition to the mandatory 200-level course everyone takes. I was there when they hired the new professor to supplement their public sector labor relations program, and I took one of her classes. There, I learned that roughly 50% of all “victims’ rights” groups are political fronts for law enforcement unions. As the takeover of an existing organization is preferable (for a number of reasons) to the founding of a new organization to act as a political front group, the criteria for selecting a group to take over was studied in some detail. We covered the nuts & bolts of it.

                I also took criminal justice classes while in the paralegal program. I had a police detective as an instructor for one class, and a sitting police commissioner for three other classes.
                Unequivocally, to generate greater career opportunities for law enforcement personnel is the primary focus of today’s law enforcement. That is the answer on the test. I mean that quite literally.

                So, there are other sources, but those are the main ones.

                Now, I have lived through the indignity of the ungrounded assertion that it is simply not feasible that Pipefitters Local 597 Chicago might place any journeyman, a member-in-good-standing, whomever at the single largest facility within their territorial jurisdiction; specifically, the 1400-acre BP Whiting refinery, BP’s largest refinery in North America.
                Actually, that facility is administered by Local 597’s Merrillville satellite office. The business agent I worked with there was Dennis, a short, middle-aged Italian man, who resembled a taller version of Louie from Taxi, but much more friendly, in a gruff sort of way.
                Granted, I had been taking home a hair over $3000 a week for several months prior to this assertion ever being made.
                Then, hot on its heels came the assertion that the SNT VT-II is not a valid inspection certification (really, it’s the gold standard in the industry), and that the American Welding Society’s weld inspection certification (the CWI) is not a valid credential.
                This assertion was being made by persons off-site, btw.
                Now, I did test in Indianapolis. Maybe that has something to do with it.
                And because I deliberately chose to avoid giving information which might lead to physical violence enacted against other persons, this might cast some doubt on whether I handed my inspection records from BP over to Jill Stein at the Sangamon Auditorium on March 3, 2016, shortly after 7:30 pm.

                I find that, typically, when someone asks me to disregard my own, personal experience, it is to achieve some benefit to that person rather than to myself.
                Not that I would consent to that sort of thing.
                Just that I would think less of people who ask.

                But now, I feel obligated to state a dearth of authority in support of any statement.
                It’s part of that Leftist love of the working man.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • It’s not that I doubt you but this is literally the only sentence in the above post that I understood – and even this statement makes me scratch my head a little.

                  But now, I feel obligated to state a dearth of authority in support of any statement.
                  It’s part of that Leftist love of the working man.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                  • :
                    Three things come immediately to mind:

                    1):

                    All things which participate in anything which is common to them all move towards that which is of the same kind as themselves. Everything which is earthy turns towards the earth, everything which is liquid flows together, and everything which is of an aerial kind does the same, so that they require something to keep them asunder, and the application of force. . . . Accordingly then everything which participates in the common intelligent nature moves in like manner towards that which is of the same kind with itself, or moves even more. . . .
                    Marcus Aurelius
                    Meditations
                    , IX, 9

                    I feel fairly confident you will be unable to grasp what Marcus is referring to, as I have now cited him.
                    I can see from my life events what my inclinations and trajectory are. I am pleased with this.
                    Whatever your own inclinations and trajectory are, they lead away from whatever it is that would bring me into these same life events– otherwise the inherent sameness would be apparent, and you would not struggle so with comprehension.

                    2): I cite public information from academic sources: one 400-level political science class, and some criminal justice classes.
                    It is not my role to educate you.
                    However, you may educate yourself by diligent search for knowledge.
                    Suggestion: Try a 400-level polisci course at a local university.

                    3): More and more I see that those politically inclined are largely void of reason, instead concocting after-the-fact justifications for their actions and beliefs.
                    I value consistency of thought and action far more than political affiliation.
                    Here, you claim to have difficulty understanding such phrasing as:
                    Not a “conspiracy theory” at all.
                    Cross-disciplinary study.

                    I asked a co-worker (I currently work for the state), a man who never graduated high school, and was recently released form prison after 18 years, whether he could make heads or tails of that snippet. I was told he could “get what [I] was saying.”
                    Arguably, your own education may well show greater application were you to instead spend 18 years in prison rather than pursue the educational path you have. There is strong evidence to show your reading comprehension would be greatly enhanced by this.

                    4): This is the way I grade my own actions, and I am much more harsh toward myself than others. But let’s take a look.
                    Seven character attributes: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Integrity, Honor, Personal Courage.
                    Which ones do this comment of yours address?
                    That comment, like all other things you do, is a manifestation of your own character and competence.

                    (redacted – maribou – explanation below)

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                    • the last few lines of your comment above were not, IMO, reflective of *your* character and competence. They also go against our policy about no direct attacks, and they were a serious overreaction to a slightly hyperbolic, perhaps gently teasing, confession of incomprehension from the author of the post you were commenting on. Hence the redaction.

                      I appreciate that you need to convey your truths, and I’m holding space for you to do that, but only when you can do it without directly impugning someone else.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *